or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

two types of skiing - Page 2

post #31 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

I use poles to help me move forward in the lift line.  They're also useful for unclicking my bindings so I can go into the base lodge / mid-mountain lunch place.

Seriously, aren't pole plants just a vestige of a past generation of skis/skiers? 
Besides balance, the modern ski poles are used, to force folk to get their bodies into proper position by reaching for the pole plant, and as MR said, as a timing cue.

In the old days there was only one long (about 6 feet long), more massive, pole.  Maybe I should bring that back into style .

Skating works better than pushing with poles. 
post #32 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ske-Bum View Post


Really, you are using that YouTube video of some of the best skiers on the planet, running the downhill at Kitzbuhl to justify you not using pole plants. LOL. I'm pretty sure we are talking apples and oranges when it comes to skiing ability, between them and you. Besides they possibly took a couple of lessons. Also I severely doubt you are hitting the speeds they are. Possibly one of the funniest things I have read lately.  

I don't make pole plants per say when I'm racing down the groomers either, but in other terrain it is a must. However, I'm sure you killing it on the groomers out there in Ontario with that technique, won't work on the steeps in the Sierra. Thanks for the laugh. 

 
Your welcome.

Regardless of my skiing ability, I have seen plenty of excellent skiing sans-pole plant.

I envy your skiing opportunities, and look forward one day (after I win the lottery), trying my sans-pole-plant skiing in the Sierra steeps.

Tell me, is the snow in the Sierra hard like that at Mt. Tremblant Quebec, or soft like that at Mount Washington BC?

BTW I admit that I'm having fun with my little foible about pole plants; everyone has got to be a little different.  However I am serious about the two ways to ski and the ski lesson industry being primarily about method 2.
Edited by Ghost - 4/23/10 at 6:19pm
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Skating works better than pushing with poles. 
 

Skating with poles works better than skating without poles :)
post #34 of 53
I too hardly ever use my poles.............................













when skiing backwards
post #35 of 53
I see people try and ski Squaw without poles on occasion. They usually have a over rotation of their upper body going on, followed by a ugly skid turn, but to each their own. Or they are on snow blades which presents it's their own type of problems, along with a lot of laughs from the locals.  You want to get heckled on the hill break out some snow blades on a powder day. 

When you do get out here let me know and I will watch you try this no pole deal. Afterward I will even buy you a beer at the Chammy, or the Cornice Cantina and we can discuss how it worked out for you. 

As for the snow, it depends on the day. Some days very soft, some days kind of soft, some days not so much. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post



Your welcome.

Regardless of my skiing ability, I have seen plenty of excellent skiing sans-pole plant.

I envy your skiing opportunities, and look forward one day (after I win the lottery), trying my sans-pole-plant skiing in the Sierra steeps.

Tell me, is the snow in the Sierra hard like that at Mt. Tremblant Quebec, or soft like that at Mount Washington BC?

BTW I admit that I'm having fun with my little foible about pole plants; everyone has got to be a little different.  However I am serious about the two ways to ski and the ski lesson industry being primarily about method 2.
 
post #36 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ske-Bum View Post

I see people try and ski Squaw without poles on occasion. They usually have a over rotation of their upper body going on, followed by a ugly skid turn, but to each their own. Or they are on snow blades which presents it's their own type of problems, along with a lot of laughs from the locals.  You want to get heckled on the hill break out some snow blades on a powder day. 

I see those over-rotated, ugly skidded turn folk too.  In fact they are in the majority, regardless of whether they have poles or not.
   I prefer to tip and bend the ski rather than rotate it, though I know how to have the snow rotate it for me if I have to.  I also usually ski with poles; I just don't do pole plants.  Although, a few minor injuries now and then have meant me spending time on snow without the poles.


When you do get out here let me know and I will watch you try this no pole deal. Afterward I will even buy you a beer at the Chammy, or the Cornice Cantina and we can discuss how it worked out for you.

 drool.gif   mmmm  Free Beer!   I'm off to buy that lotto ticket.

post #37 of 53
Method 2.  Was this defensive way of skiing invented by Instructors who don't want their student launching down the hill into an injury?

Or, is Method 2 just a more reasonable way to ski the whole mountain and gives the skier more options for survival in rough terrain.  Rough terrain though would depend on the ability level of the skier not necessarily the actual mountain.  One skiers fun in a chute is anothers trip down in the ski patrol sled.

Method 2, Defensive Skiing, Survival etc., the person skiing Method 2 determines if he/she is defensively skiing/surviving or judiciously picking the best line, speed, snow and outcome of his skills.  If the skier is doing the latter it could hardly be called defensive skiing, maybe it would be better to call this method of skiing; smart and goal/outcome oriented.

I think all of us have seen Defensive/survival skiing or Green, Blue and Black terrain.  The method does not determine this but the skier's skills determine if he/she is skiing defensively.

Method 1.  Maybe arguably this is what skiing is all about.  Medium, high and real high speed skiing down the mountain give me and I am sure others the thrill, enjoyment and appreciation of the snow, terrain and just the simple recognition of accomplishment. 

Some skiers never recognize or experience Method 1.

When I was an instructor so much emphasis was placed on Method 2 and way too many comments were made of my Method 2 skiing.  I rather like the comments that I get now on my Method 1 skiing (which I do as often as possible),  "Hey Pete don't you ever turn?".

There are those that would watch a Method 1 skier and tell him that he needs to turn more.  Skiing the flow of the mountain is what it is all about not how perfect a turn is made.  The skiers skill level is what determines his or her method and of course the terrain he or she is skiing.

Example:   In the mists, steeps and trees VA is a Method 1 skier and I am a Method 2.   Skill and experience levels different.

post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete No. Idaho View Post

Method 2.  Was this defensive way of skiing invented by Instructors who don't want their student launching down the hill into an injury?

Or, is Method 2 just a more reasonable way to ski the whole mountain and gives the skier more options for survival in rough terrain.  Rough terrain though would depend on the ability level of the skier not necessarily the actual mountain.  One skiers fun in a chute is anothers trip down in the ski patrol sled.

Method 2, Defensive Skiing, Survival etc., the person skiing Method 2 determines if he/she is defensively skiing/surviving or judiciously picking the best line, speed, snow and outcome of his skills.  If the skier is doing the latter it could hardly be called defensive skiing, maybe it would be better to call this method of skiing; smart and goal/outcome oriented.

I think all of us have seen Defensive/survival skiing or Green, Blue and Black terrain.  The method does not determine this but the skier's skills determine if he/she is skiing defensively.

Method 1.  Maybe arguably this is what skiing is all about.  Medium, high and real high speed skiing down the mountain give me and I am sure others the thrill, enjoyment and appreciation of the snow, terrain and just the simple recognition of accomplishment. 

Some skiers never recognize or experience Method 1.

When I was an instructor so much emphasis was placed on Method 2 and way too many comments were made of my Method 2 skiing.  I rather like the comments that I get now on my Method 1 skiing (which I do as often as possible),  "Hey Pete don't you ever turn?".

There are those that would watch a Method 1 skier and tell him that he needs to turn more.  Skiing the flow of the mountain is what it is all about not how perfect a turn is made.  The skiers skill level is what determines his or her method and of course the terrain he or she is skiing.

Example:   In the mists, steeps and trees VA is a Method 1 skier and I am a Method 2.   Skill and experience levels different.


its skiing pete there is everything in between the Method 1 and Method 2. and then there is more laterally. Skiing has infinite possiabilties and I pity the person who thinks other wise cause they are missing tons of what the sport has to offer.
post #39 of 53
Thread Starter 
From the levels thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post



Good point, Ghost. I believe that there is usually an expectation of a certain level of proficiency, in addition to knowledge, for a black belt in most disciplines. But either way, it is in many ways simpler than rating skiing proficiency because the martial arts disciplines are much more strictly defined. It's a critical distinction between (most) martial arts and "free-skiing." 

Really, that's largely the root of the challenge in defining ability in skiing--there is virtually no standard definition or agreement as to what good skiing is--as evidenced in many, many discussions here at EpicSki! Competitive skiing has its own rules, of course--different in each discipline. Some is timed, some is judged, but the parameters are at least reasonably clearly laid out.

But recreational skiers are naturally independent sorts, and the motivations they have for skiing are diverse. If nothing else, skiing is about freedom of expression. Most skiers ski to escape rules--not to submit to more of them. Few would blindly accept any person's decree as to how you "should" ski. Ski instructors, especially in the United States, have long recognized that what we teach must be relevant to each individual student's personal and unique motivations, and that few students will ski a particular way just because an instructor says its "right." If an instructor fails to convince students that the technical change they're working on is relevant to their own motivations, those students are unlikely to return..

Ski instruction hasn't always been that way. There was a time when ski schools were much more technique-centered than student-centered. You'd learn the technique of this ski school--French Technique, Austrian Technique, American Ski Technique, etc.--whether you liked it or not. Instructors were disciplinarians, and technique was right just because "someone" said so. 

Teaching today is considerably more challenging. It would be much easier in a "martial arts discipline-like" system, where instructors didn't have to care what you wanted--they'd just teach you the prescribed technique, and the next step of the progression, without regard for your own interests or personal goals. And the measurement of ability level would be a simple question of where you were in the learning progression--which "final form" you were able to demonstrate. 

And students would learn how to do a technique, instead of learning how to ski! "Good technique" would be determined by some "master"--mere students would not be worthy of knowing what they want, what they like, what is "fun" for them, or certainly, what is "good." Freedom of expression? Bah! You must do it as I say--otherwise I'll kick you out of the dojo. 

Yep, that would be a lot easier for the instructor! But who would pay for it?

With rare exceptions, that would go over like a lead balloon with the free-spirited, independent personalities who tend to become skiers. Unless you're a pure follower with little self-esteem, you probably don't need someone else's opinion to know if you're having fun, or someone else's assurance to determine your own worthiness. You probably want technique to serve your needs and goals, rather than putting your goals aside to be subservient to a technique.  

How many recreational skiers, really, care about doing a perfect wedge christie or pivot-slip (as defined by me, of course), just for its own sake? But if you become convinced that it will make you a better skier by your own definition--that it will help you accomplish your own personal goals and make your life better in a way that is important to you--then you might be willing to work on it a bit, right? It's your money, so it really is all about you!

And that is what all successful instructors do--they help YOU succeed, by your own definition of success, by helping you identify and accomplish YOUR needs and goals. They teach techniques that have purpose, not just final forms that are simply defined as '"right" in and of themselves. They teach technique not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end--an end that is meaningful, important to, and defined by you, the student, not the instructor or some "teaching system."

But how many people understand this? If the discussions at EpicSki serve as a barometer, it would seem that a lot of skiers still think that instructors teach technique only for its own sake, that we (or an organization) define a technique-du-jour that is important only if you want to, well, "look" that way, or "ski like an instructor." How many people realize that "good technique"--as defined by (good) instructors--is only measured by the purpose it serves? Define your purpose, and a good instructor will help you achieve it with techniques and tactics--as well as teaching methods and progressions--custom-tailored to you, and your own needs and desires.

---

That's not to say, of course, that every student needs a different technique. Good basic technique serves many purposes. Want to go faster in the race course? Rip through the powder? Become more efficient so you can ski longer without getting tired? Hold and carve better on ice? Look "elegant"? Ski smoother? Gain speed control for confidence on the blue runs? Black runs? Off-Piste? Glide through moguls without pounding? Carve dynamic, high-g turns? Ski crud with panache and confidence? Impress the opposite (or, if you prefer, same) sex?

Surprisingly, perhaps, a similar set of basic, fundamental movement patterns and tactics will accomplish all of these diverse goals. (Oh, all right--that last one may be a little harder to define!) All of these different motivations will be served by the same principles of sound, modern, technical and tactical fundamentals developed as habits ("default" technique)--augmented by the skill and adaptability needed to "break the rules," and the judgment and experience to know when to do it.

More specifically, all of these goals and motivations benefit from movements that allow the skier to efficiently ski any line and turn shape and size desired while keeping the feet going the direction they're pointed as much as possible, and from applying that fine line control to tactics that minimize the need for braking. (Braking, of course, requires different movements to twist the skis across the direction of travel into a skid, sacrificing some control of line, necessitating more braking, in a catch-22 death spiral toward mediocrity!)  

Of course, there are exceptions--motivations and goals that demand different techniques--and a good instructor can teach those too, if it's what you want. Narrow your parameters--choose your specific discipline--and "good and bad," or "right and wrong." become much more meaningful and clear. Want to learn "French Technique," throw a 720 D-spin, learn a "retraction turn," or demonstrate a Reuel Christie? These are more clearly defined disciplines where "right and wrong" apply. But are they "good skiing"?

The entire point of what good instructors and instructor organizations strive to identify as "good technique" is to serve the real, diverse needs and goals of students. And effective instructors will always make sure that their students understand the relevance of the techniques they're taught to their own, personal motivations. It's never right because it's "good technique"--it's only right (for you) when you understand how it will improve your life--or at least, your enjoyment of the sport. I may think it's right for you, but It's only really right when YOU say it's right!

---

(Whoa...I didn't mean to get that far off track here! I'll step off my soapbox now, and try to get back on-topic....) 



Er, so...the inherent lack of a common definition of "good" free-skiing makes it virtually impossible to rank all recreational skiers on a concise, clearly-defined, universal scale of "goodness." Good instructors do recognize good technique, and may cringe at the skiing of some skiers who consider themselves "good." But, even as they can easily find a key, a focus, a movement, or a tactic that will help virtually anyone get more from the sport, they still must recognize that there are other measurements of "good" beyond sound, functional, purposeful, efficient technique. And, until an individual understands how a technical change (or perhaps a tactical change, or a focus that improves awareness and "touch," or that advances "will") will be important to him, he may well honestly think he's "better" than he really is. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, or "skiing well is easy, if you don't know how to do it" (to paraphrase the great painter Degas). 

It is clear that any measurement of "good-ness" can only apply after "good" itself is defined. Good technique?--good for what? Good skiing? In whose opinion? Based on what? 

The world of student-centered (as opposed to technique-centered) instruction is far richer and more complex than the old days of set learning progressions and strict definitions of approved techniques. Those days (and "systems") certainly simplified the process of rating ability--because it was only the opinion of the instructor that mattered. But they didn't necessarily help people get the most out of the sport.

If anyone still wants an instructor to tell you how good or bad you are, we'll be glad to take your money. But don't argue--if your opinion mattered, you wouldn't have to ask!


 
Best regards,
Bob

Perhaps, it seems to me, that ski instruction has been primarily concerned with Method 2, because that is what has been in the greatest demand among recreational skiers.
post #40 of 53
BUSHWACKER.  Certainly agree with you.  As in other parts of our lives people sometimes focus (or are brainwashed) into thinking and seeing only one way.  A waste for everything life has in store for us. Skiing is such a multi faceted sport, sometimes as you say the lateral part of skiing is sometimes the most enjoyable.  Still, for me Method 1 is fun, fun fun.
post #41 of 53
Lets see if I have this right?

Method 1. skis on the snow
Method 2. nose on the snow, skis in the air...

I do both!
post #42 of 53
No you have it wrong....method 1 = ski down the hill as fast as possible, letting the skis turn without slowing down, if something happens to cross or block your line, run it over! Seriously though I understand what the op is trying to say but I think that the two methods are just extremes. Anyone at any time will choose to ski somewhere in between....depending on comfort level, skill level, terrain, conditions, and the crowd on the hill.
post #43 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keduco View Post

No you have it wrong....method 1 = ski down the hill as fast as possible, letting the skis turn without slowing down, if something happens to cross or block your line, run it over! Seriously though I understand what the op is trying to say but I think that the two methods are just extremes. Anyone at any time will choose to ski somewhere in between....depending on comfort level, skill level, terrain, conditions, and the crowd on the hill.
Not quite. It's "Go that way very fast. If something gets in your way, turn."

It may be different for other people, but for me when skiing I default to method 1, and when that is not possible, because I have never been on the run before and need to scout it out, or because it's just to crowded, or because there's a mandatory 90 degree turn at the bottom of a steep, I add elements from method 2, more or less as needed. 

Method 1 = letting the skis run, turning with as little loss of speed as possible (but still turning where you want to go), allowing speed to build up as you go down the hill.

Method 2 = speed control, turning while keeping speed in check, not allowing speed to build up past some arbitrary limit that is way below what the line will give you if you let it.
post #44 of 53
Really I was just being sarcastic with my definition...but when you mix method one with some method two don't you basically end up with infinite possibilities....not just 2 methods?
post #45 of 53
Btw the way "go that way very fast, if something gets in your way, turn!" are you quoting Better Off Dead? Great movie!
post #46 of 53
Thread Starter 
Yes, that's the movie. Your sentence was too close not to quote it.

Yes.  There are essentially an infinite number of positions on the continuum between 1 and 2 when skiing, and ultimately, when free-skiing you are beyond infinite levels in a continuum or the constraints of described technique.

Just the same, if you look at it through the lens of these two methods, a lot of different teaching, skiing schools, and skiing technique analysis comes into focus.
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Ghost wrote:

It's not ski the slow line fast, it's ski the slow line as fast as you can.  Some folks have less skill and need to ski the slow line a little slower than others.

I agree with the comment.  What I don't know and can't imagine is the technique you use to accomplish this feat without pole plants.  Video sure would help fill in the void.
post #48 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailbender View Post



What I don't know and can't imagine is the technique you use to accomplish this feat without pole plants.  Video sure would help fill in the void.
 

That's probably because you learned your slow skiing techniques in lessons where pole plants played a major role and cannot disassociate the pole plants from what the skis are doing on the snow.  I skipped those lessons. For me having an ice-skating background to complement my skiing experience, and having skied enough times without poles when my wrist or thumb was temporarily kaput,  it's all about the ski-snow interaction, regardless of what the poles are doing.

When I need to dump just a little speed or not gain speed, I just smear a few turns instead of making edge-locked arcs.
post #49 of 53
Of course, this is a question and a point very near to my own heart, and I've often described good skiing habits as (with purposeful exceptions) "skiing the slow line fast." More accurately, it is "skiing a slow enough line as fast as you can--when you can, and braking when you have to." I've written those words many, many times here before, and they've been discussed ad nauseum, so I won't go too deeply into it again now. 

I'll just add this one thought, for (maybe) a little clarification on the "two ways to ski":

It's not that there are only two ways to ski--as Bushwacker says, there are infinite ways to ski, of course.

But there are only two ways to slow down (two ways to control speed).  I describe them, loosely, as "friction," and "direction."

"Friction" (with apologies to the physics purists here) includes braking with skidding, scraping skis, but it also includes falling down, dragging poles, wind resistance, and running into things--anything that increases the sliding, gliding resistance of our skis (or body).

"Direction" is simple: going uphill slows you down.

Friction, and direction--there is no third way to slow down! Yes, there are many ways to increase friction (or sliding resistance in general), and many techniques and tactics that control direction (uphill or down) with varying effectiveness--so there are many "ways" to ski. But given that we pretty much always need some sort of speed control, we really can narrow it down to two broad categories.

Skiing really is a sport of polarities, "both-and" concepts where we must embrace and fully commit to both poles, as well as mutually exclusive polar opposites, "either-or's" where we can choose one or the other but not both, where any point in between is a compromise.

Here are a few of my favorite dichotomies---all quite related:
  • There are two things we can control: direction, and speed.
  • There are two ways to slow down: direction (go uphill) and friction (stop going downhill).
  • Two intents both cause turns (but they cause very different movements): "go that way," and "stop going this way."
  • There are two types of movements: "positive" (in the direction of the turn) and "negative" (away from the turn). Restated, we can turn our skis to the right by either turning the tips right or the tails left. Superficially, the result is the same, but they are hardly equivalent!  
  • Could there be any more different thoughts than "go that way as fast as you can," and "stop going so fast this way"?

So...why do you turn?

Best regards.
Bob
post #50 of 53
It appears that Ghost has defined two extremes that are not quite the same as Bob's definitions of offensive/positive and defensive/negative.

Ghost wrote:
Quote:
Method 1 = letting the skis run, turning with as little loss of speed as possible (but still turning where you want to go), allowing speed to build up as you go down the hill.

Method 2 = speed control, turning while keeping speed in check, not allowing speed to build up past some arbitrary limit that is way below what the line will give you if you let it.
 
Ghost's Method 1 includes "allowing the speed to build up as you go down the hill." We note that it is entirely possible to choose a "slow line" that, even if skied entirely with efficient, positive, offensive moves, will allow the skier to arrive at the bottom moving approximately as fast as he or she was moving by the end of the second or third turn. Obviously, there are speed variations through each turn, but the line can be chosen to maintain a more or less constant overall speed, rather than increase it. This is possible even with pure arc-to-arc carves, if the pitch and amount of space available allow it.

So...does choosing such a line (for more or less constant speed) qualify as Method 1 (because the skier is not using any method but line to control speed) or Method 2 (because speed is not building up as the skier goes down the hill)? Just asking.

We might also note that it is possible to "ski the fast line slow" with positive, offensive moves. A well-executed pivot slip is, perhaps, the epitome of this (feel free to disagree). Although it is clearly Method 2 in Ghost's world, every pivot is initiated with a downhill release. The tails never move up the hill. The body never moves up the hill. The skis release as they flatten in the downhill direction and the tips move down the hill. The skis are clearly skidding/smearing/slipping, and yet, someone who is good at it has remarkably exquisite control of line while using very little effort to actually twist the skis. They are choosing to "go that way," which is straight down the fall line, albeit on skis that are pointed across the hill.

And yet, it's Method 2. And it's the "fast line slow." And it certainly creates friction. Does that make it bad skiing? I don't think so. Often inappropriate, yes (just as pure arc-to-arc is often inappropriate). Certainly not something you want to do for every turn, or even very many of them. But that release, where you tip the skis downhill and they both just...let go, so that you can guide them however you wish, into a pure pivot or a pure arc or anything in between - that's how I want to start every turn, whether I'm skiing Method 1 or Method 2. And I want to release that way whether I'm skiing groom, crud, trees, powder or moguls.

So, Bob, in the pivot slip, we create friction and it does indeed make us "stop going downhill," or, at least, it slows down the rate of travel downhill. Does that mean it's a defensive move? Of course not. In fact, it's only possible if the moves are offensive - if the skier is willing to move downhill with the skis "offensively" enough to stay on top of them so they can be kept flat enough to slip rather than braking to a stop. The pivot slip, in fact, teaches offensive moves throughout, IMHO, even though it also creates friction. And, it teaches us how to create and apply friction without getting defensive.

By the way, Ghost, you'll be happy to know that the pivot slip does not require a pole touch/plant, and the skill blend can be modified to move through turns of various radii ending up in a pure carve, all without a pole plant. In the other hand, the pole touch does make a very useful timing mechanism, especially when things get ugly (bumpy, cruddy, forested, etc.). You're wise to learn to do as much as possible without them, though. People who depend on a firm pole plant tend to have a hard time in deep, soft or uneven snow, since there may or may not be any significant resistance when the basket hits the surface. The pole touch is a useful tool - don't under estimate it. Those of you who think you need poles for everything, though - beware using the poles to compensate for inaccurate balance or ineffective movements.
post #51 of 53
"So...why do you turn?"
Perhaps all of the above ,at times , but mostly because I enjoy the variety of sensations it gives me . Turning and all the verious ways you can do it is fun .

Spinoza
post #52 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post

It appears that Ghost has defined two extremes that are not quite the same as Bob's definitions of offensive/positive and defensive/negative.

Ghost wrote:

Ghost's Method 1 includes "allowing the speed to build up as you go down the hill." We note that it is entirely possible to choose a "slow line" that, even if skied entirely with efficient, positive, offensive moves, will allow the skier to arrive at the bottom moving approximately as fast as he or she was moving by the end of the second or third turn. Obviously, there are speed variations through each turn, but the line can be chosen to maintain a more or less constant overall speed, rather than increase it. This is possible even with pure arc-to-arc carves, if the pitch and amount of space available allow it.
Possible, but it would take a fair bit of skill on the hills I've been able to access lately.  You would need to ski uphill about 40% of the time, and the runs are narrow, I believe the term is "octopus turns".


So...does choosing such a line (for more or less constant speed) qualify as Method 1 (because the skier is not using any method but line to control speed) or Method 2 (because speed is not building up as the skier goes down the hill)? Just asking.
I would say that is method 2.  Just say'n.


We might also note that it is possible to "ski the fast line slow" with positive, offensive moves. A well-executed pivot slip is, perhaps, the epitome of this (feel free to disagree). Although it is clearly Method 2 in Ghost's world, every pivot is initiated with a downhill release. The tails never move up the hill. The body never moves up the hill. The skis release as they flatten in the downhill direction and the tips move down the hill. The skis are clearly skidding/smearing/slipping, and yet, someone who is good at it has remarkably exquisite control of line while using very little effort to actually twist the skis. They are choosing to "go that way," which is straight down the fall line, albeit on skis that are pointed across the hill.

And yet, it's Method 2. And it's the "fast line slow." And it certainly creates friction. Does that make it bad skiing? I don't think so. Often inappropriate, yes (just as pure arc-to-arc is often inappropriate). Certainly not something you want to do for every turn, or even very many of them. But that release, where you tip the skis downhill and they both just...let go, so that you can guide them however you wish, into a pure pivot or a pure arc or anything in between - that's how I want to start every turn, whether I'm skiing Method 1 or Method 2. And I want to release that way whether I'm skiing groom, crud, trees, powder or moguls.

So, Bob, in the pivot slip, we create friction and it does indeed make us "stop going downhill," or, at least, it slows down the rate of travel downhill. Does that mean it's a defensive move? Of course not. In fact, it's only possible if the moves are offensive - if the skier is willing to move downhill with the skis "offensively" enough to stay on top of them so they can be kept flat enough to slip rather than braking to a stop. The pivot slip, in fact, teaches offensive moves throughout, IMHO, even though it also creates friction. And, it teaches us how to create and apply friction without getting defensive.

And here lies the ski instructors main stock in trade - how to ski slowly without skiing defensively.

Incedently the pivot can be used in certain circumstances to increase speed.  Think of starting off from a stop with your skis pointed across the hill; you will gain more speed by first pivoting them to point down hill. 




By the way, Ghost, you'll be happy to know that the pivot slip does not require a pole touch/plant, and the skill blend can be modified to move through turns of various radii ending up in a pure carve, all without a pole plant.  Pivot/smear momentum management is a favourite game of mine, the goal being to weave through the crowd of gapers blocking the entrance to the empty lift line coral while maintaining just enough momentum to make it to the chair or back of the line if there is an actual line.  Sometimes some snowboarders will see what your doing and start running try to beat you to the coral.  It's hard not to revert to arcing when that happens..  In the other hand, the pole touch does make a very useful timing mechanism, especially when things get ugly (bumpy, cruddy, forested, etc.). You're wise to learn to do as much as possible without them, though. People who depend on a firm pole plant tend to have a hard time in deep, soft or uneven snow, since there may or may not be any significant resistance when the basket hits the surface. The pole touch is a useful tool - don't under estimate it. Those of you who think you need poles for everything, though - beware using the poles to compensate for inaccurate balance or ineffective movements.
post #53 of 53
There is Method 1 and Method 2.   In between there is:

1a.  Avid speed freak.
1b.  Speed overcomes Boredom.
1c.  Crud slows one's speed and direction.
1d.  Developing one's speed  confidence is a long road - of fun
1e.  The concept of real speed is different for Everyone.
1f.   Speed is to a certain degree Freedom
1g.  Golfs slow roll in tapper has nothing over the feeling of speed on the snow.
1h.  Ever melt your Spyder pant by hitting a breakaway so fast they melted?  Thats some pretty Hot skiing.
1i.   Skiing at speed is a very individual endeavor and therein lies the fascination .
1j.   ---well huh hum this is a family forum---
1k.  Method 1 speed Kicks ass.
1l.   Be Liberated ski at speed.
1m. Method 1 rules. Moguls are no excuse.
1n.  Newbies get a mph break on describing their speed.
1o.  Others ski defensively.
1p.  It is an absolute Pain to ski defensively all the time.
1q.  Quick in the trees, look at the GAPS fool not the trees.
1r.   Racers understand speed and charging down the hill.  Damn the gates full speed ahead.
1s.  Speed is relative and depends a lot on the SNOW's composition, texture, your ski's wax, cajones and infinitum.
1t.   Method 1 skiers drink Moosedrool lager at the end of the day not TEA
1u.  Do Unto Others does not apply on a powder day.
1v.  Victory is not obtain by who gets to the bottom lst but by How that is obtained and the method used as long as it is not Method 2
1w. Sking in the woods at speed - inquire of one called Volant Addict he's somewhere in the NW
1x.  X will mark the spot if you think too much about Method 2 if you are performing Method 1
1y.  Yes, you could regret too much Method 1 but if you only do Method 2 you will regret it forever.
1z.  Eek gads there aren't any Zebras on the slopes, well unless you count the ski patrol.  Get a copy of Swift, Silent and Deep to learn
        to evade the zebras.

Next is Method 2.  Have to pass here I'm not the guy.  Find the main contributors to the Waist Steering thread they can help ya.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion